From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756843Ab3EOHgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2013 03:36:22 -0400 Received: from co9ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([207.46.163.26]:8775 "EHLO co9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752704Ab3EOHgV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2013 03:36:21 -0400 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:70.37.183.190;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:mail.freescale.net;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: 0 X-BigFish: VS0(zz98dIc89bh936eI1432Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6h1082kzz8275bhz2dh2a8h668h839h93fhd25he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh1354h137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h1765h18e1h190ch1946h19c3h1ad9h1b0ah1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1155h) Message-ID: <51933B79.5000608@freescale.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 15:38:33 +0800 From: Huang Shijie User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc_size References: <1366967337-5534-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <1366967337-5534-2-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <1368602870.13665.7.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1368602870.13665.7.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 于 2013年05月15日 15:27, Artem Bityutskiy 写道: > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: >> Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields. >> We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields. >> >> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie > Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them > in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches > on top of them, which is a bit confusing. > Ok, Please drop the 3 patches. >> * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident >> * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet. >> + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known; >> + * if unknown, set to 0. > I find this confusing still. How about this comment. > > ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per > @ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero. > > it's okay to me. >> * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength, >> - * also from the datasheet. >> + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step >> + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0. > Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"? > In nand_ecc_ctrl{}, the ecc step is named to @size. Personally, i perfer to ecc_step. thanks Huang Shijie